[This msg was originally posted in a 'multi-
faceted' thread in bionet.neuroscience. I'm
adding comp.ai.philosophy, and deleting
other cross-posts that were wasteful.]
Necessary Clarification and some typos fixed,
in-line, below.
"ken" <kpaulc@[remove]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:6SWdc.3807$k05.1899 at newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Glen M. Sizemore" <gmsizemore2 at yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:434c8faa7dbecc154d0e466857334aa2 at news.teranews.com...>> For the most part, I found your post to
> be Cogent, Informative, and Welcome,
> but I disagree with the position you ex-
> press in your last paragraph. More, on
> that, below.
>> > BTW, we don't see a blind spot for the
> > very same reasons that we do not view
> > the world as upside down. The blind
> > spot is not "filled in" because there is
> > no constructed "picture" or other sort
> > of representation in the alleged mind
> > or brain to fill in.
> >
> > Some of what Stratton reports is directly
> > relevant to the "filling in" issue: when one
> > wears inverting goggles, the world, of
> > course, appears upside down at first. Over
> > time this goes away for the most part. But
> > as our perceptual behavior comes to be
> > a function of the new sensorimotor con-
> > tingencies (cf O'Regan and Noe) things
> > happen that appear incompatible with the
> > notion that the brain or mind "makes right"
> > the "representation" that is otherwise faulty
> > (because it is upside down on the retina,
> > or that there is a place on the retina with
> > no receptors). Specifically, parts of a scene
> > will appear "right-side up" while spatially
> > contiguous objects are still seen as inverted.
> > It is hard to imagine (and it begins to sound
> > gratuitous) some mechanism whereby the
> > image of individual objects in the alleged
> > representation are adjusted but the objects
> > spatially adjacent are not.
> >
> > There are additional observations that seem
> > at odds with the "representation repair"
> > notion. For example, Stratton reports that
> > a pitcher and glass may appear inverted
> > until one pours from the pitcher, at which
> > time the glass and pitcher may appear right-
> > side up.
> >
> > The best course of action is to recognize
> > the vacuousness of the notion of representa-
> > tion.
>> The inverted-lensing "instabilities" that you've
> discussed, above, derive in the physical reality
> of the neural Topology. What's happening in
> these "instabilities" is that the TD E/I-minimiz-
> ation-governed "supersystem configuration"
> mechanisms [AoK, Ap5] are 'slipping out of
> gear'. That is, the artificially-imposed topolo-
> gical "invertedness" forces the TD E/I-minimi-
> zation"-governed "supersystem configuration"
> mechanisms to perform relatively-more TD
> E/I-minimization =work=. Meanwhile, the
> "world" continues on its 'merry' way - the
> artificial imposition of the inverting lenses does
> not alter the information content of the extern-
> al environment - it 'only' "renders useless" [AoK,
> Ap8] "biologcical mass" [AoK, Ap5] that had,
> formerly been constructed by the TD E/I-mini-
> mization mechanisms in order to optimize the
> neural Topology with respect to =experiential=
> external environment.
The last sentence was poorly-written.
"Biological mass" is constructed =throughout=
the nervous system, at the cellular level, as a
'blindly'-automated result of the neural activation
that actually occurs within the nervous system,
including within the TD E/I-minimization mech-
anisms [as they are discussed in AoK, but I'm
coming to see that the nervous system, itself, is,
in it's globally-integrated dynamics, "a super-TD
E/I-minimization mechanism"].
TD E/I-minimization =governs= this distributed
construction, maintenance, and augmentation
of "biological mass".
> So, when the artificial topological-invertedness
> is imposed by the inverting lenses, the "biological
> mass" that was formerly TD E/I(min)-function-
> al is "rendered useless" - it no longer enables
> 'optimimal' TD E/I-minimization, as it formerly
> did [as a result of TD E/I-minimization-govern-
> ed convergence upon TD E/I(min) ["Learning"]],
> so the TD E/I-minimization mechanisms have
> to do relatively-more information-processing
> Work, in real-'time', in order to 'strive' to 'ach-
> ieve' TD E/I(min).
>> But, because the external environment continues
> on its 'merry' way - because the imposition of
> the artificial topological invertedness does not
> 'decrease' the information-content of external
> physical reality - the TD E/I-minimization mech-
> anisms tend to function in an "[u]nstable" way. They
> cannot keep-up with the external environment's
> rate of information-flow, and their 'gears slip'
> ["1gears'", here not being "gears" ["of course"],
> but neural-topological analogues [see the dis-
> cussion of "ratchet-pawling" in the sections of
> AoK, Ap5 that discusses hippocampal and basal
> ganglia function].
>> My 'point', in this reply to the position discussed,
in the OP,
> both immediately above and below, is that these
> "instabilities" literally quantify the Existence of the
> "special topological homeomorphism" - the neural
> Topology - that is discussed in AoK.
>> Other examples of analogous quantifiable evidence
> abounds within 'normal' experience.
>> The "trick" that Children [and some Adults :-] com-
> only play on their associates, in which the "trickster"
> approaches an associate from behind [from outside
> of the associate's field of vision], and taps one of
> the associate's shoulders, while "ducking" in the op-
> posite Direction is a routine example that is eminently-
> Quantifiable.
>> There are g'zillions of other examples, all Quantifiable.
>> And, when such Quantification is carried out, only
> =ONE= thing will be discerned across all of the
> g'zillions of instances:
>> Behavior will =always= be slowed, relative to 'normal'
> behavioral dynamics.
>> This consistent-Quantification occurs for a =single=
> Reason: topologically-'abnormal' experience loses
> degrees of TD E/I-minimization optimality that are
> built-right-into the physical structure of the neural
> Topology.
>> The Behaviorist's approach is =Powerful= with re-
> spect to the Quantification that's entailed, and I En-
> courage Behaviorists to get-busy with a Rapid-Do-
> ing of it.
>> For, when this Quantification is carried-out, the 'gaps'
> that [have] existed between Behavioral Science, Cogni-
> tive Science. and Neuroscience will be eliminated, be-
> cause the neural Topology will literally be recreated in
> the resultant Quantification.
>> And, in such, one will literally be able to look-upon
> "Representation", Numerically.
>> > Seeing is a way of exploring the world, it is a way
> > of behaving in the world, not copying it.
>> "Biological mass" that's created as a result of TD E/I-
> minimization with respect to one's external experien-
> tial environment is, literally, a grasping of the 3-D
> energydynamics that exist within that environment.
>> "Biological mass" literally Represents external exper-
> iential environment within the neural Topologies of
> nervous systems.
>> Above, I Give you the Opportunity to [...]
> Quantify such, and to Give such Quantification to
> Humanity, through your Expertise in Behavioral Sci-
> ence, Dr. Sizemore.
>> K. P. Collins
>> >
> > [...]
>>